 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaakko
Okay Jon, so am I to understand you favour the same penalties for abortion that exist for murder (legal term) today? |
it wouldn't be 1st degree, and in the US would probably com under manslaughter
but don't you see how they are the same? (particluar the reasons?)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
what do they do to the girls and women who kill their babies after they are born now
that seems to be the reasonable result
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaakko
|
 |
in Yellow
Jan 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Stefu, as far as I'm concerned, a woman's right to control her own body trumps any right the baby in her womb has. I am in favour of removing the baby alive if it can be done, assuming that it will be given care and the mother absolved of any responsibility (not a very practical idea, but...).
Combine that with the complete lack of practical downsides to the practice of abortion, and I have no reason to advocate banning it.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I do see the annoyance factor in not confronting arguments properly. There's only one cure for that, and it's called www.straightdope.com 
The analogy itself was very loaded, what with you using the slaveholder/abolitionist combo. Like it or not, it implicates a hell of a lot, and in bad way. The issue is not quite as cut and dry.
----------
Jon, I most definitely don't see abortion and ex-utero (big word  ) killing as the same. Look above.
But now that you've given me the consistent answer on my question, I can't help but to echo our resident porn star and say "You lose. Sorry. Get over it."
It's just a fundamental philosophical difference between us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
what is the difference between a baby 20 hours after its birth and 10 seconds before?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Stefu, as far as I'm concerned, a woman's right to control her own body trumps any right the baby in her womb has. |
Well, we disagree.
The funny thing is, I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here. I believe that Finnish abortion laws at the moment are what suits me, and I had a very good reason for this although I have forgotten it. But you can't have people arguing using wrong arguments even if they're arguing for the right cause, now can ye?
Anyway, what is the basis of absolute right to control own body, even allowing killing a baby? I believe it's one of those "my right to swing a fist ends at your nose" thingies.
quote:
The analogy itself was very loaded, what with you using the slaveholder/abolitionist combo. Like it or not, it implicates a hell of a lot, and in bad way. |
Of course it was loaded. Let's face it, I was using a blunt instrument. But I think that that analogy can be useful to see some shortcomings in pro-choice arguing, and certainly how two sides are arguing two different things. If someone thinks I'm implying pro-choicers support slavery, they're just looking for a reason to be offended.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
what is the difference between a baby 20 hours after its birth and 10 seconds before?
Jon Miller |
They can't hear the child's cries when she is still "protected" by the mother. The difference is that they can pretend that they are not really killing anyone. It is hard to pretend that it isn't human when the nurses and everyone is watching the knife as it penetrates the flesh of the infant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
Already had this argument on Civfanatics, and already had pro-lifers unable to fight the evidence, and still sticking to their beliefs.
Let's see. Why abortion could be considered bad ? Because it would kill a person. Hence we have two possibilities :
1) the embryo is a person.
2) the embryo is not a person.
What define a person ? Some argued that it's the DNA. It's absurd. My skin cells have DNA, it does not make each of them a person. Some people have chromosomic anomalies (3 chromosoms 21) and they are still considered a person, though they do not share the same DNA as most humans. Twins have the same DNA and are still considered two persons.
So what make someone a disctinct person ?
Obviously, it' the mind. A sentient alien should be considered a distinct person as much as a twin.
So it's not ending LIFE which is bad (after all, when I'm cutting my hand, I kill it, and nobody think that I should be punished). What is bad is to destroy a MIND.
Has the embryo a mind ?
Well, for that we need to see WHERE the mind is located. This is very easy with simple observation : there is ample examples of men who lost their arms, their legs, their nose, well ANY part of their body, and stayed the same person.
Though, ANY damage on the brain bring changes on the personnality and mental abilities.
It's also impossible to replace the brain, while prothesis are available for about anything else.
Hence, the mind is located in the brain.
Has the embryo a brain ?
It has, after a while, a nervous system. Though, the brain does not start to appear before the 10-12 th week. After that, the embryo is no more an embryo, but a fetus.
Hence the answer : NO the embryo is not a person. Hence, there is nothing bad in abortion up to the 10th or 12th week, as you don't destroy a mind.
Case closed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
|
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Actually Stefu, considering that we're in a heavily American environment whenever we post, the slave analogy is way too blatant. Also I'm not even sure what your point is in some places, and the way it's more of a "slaver's monologue" doesn't help. |
This is also the Internet, where standard debate fare is to compare people to Taliban, the Inquisition, Soviet Union and so on. People just have to manage. Every point has an analogy, and it's a slaver's monologue because I couldn't think up anything for the abolitionist to say.
quote:
As for the "my right to swing a fist ends at your nose" angle, it's an oversimplification. Right now we've got the nose inside the hitter's body, an out of bounds case if there ever was one. |
No, not really. Placement of nose in space/time doesn't really have any bearing as to whether the right to swing a fist exists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Already had this argument on Civfanatics, and already had pro-lifers unable to fight the evidence, and still sticking to their beliefs.
Let's see. Why abortion could be considered bad ? Because it would kill a person. Hence we have two possibilities :
1) the embryo is a person.
2) the embryo is not a person.
What define a person ? Some argued that it's the DNA. It's absurd. My skin cells have DNA, it does not make each of them a person. Some people have chromosomic anomalies (3 chromosoms 21) and they are still considered a person, though they do not share the same DNA as most humans. Twins have the same DNA and are still considered two persons.
So what make someone a disctinct person ?
Obviously, it' the mind. A sentient alien should be considered a distinct person as much as a twin.
So it's not ending LIFE which is bad (after all, when I'm cutting my hand, I kill it, and nobody think that I should be punished). What is bad is to destroy a MIND.
Has the embryo a mind ?
Well, for that we need to see WHERE the mind is located. This is very easy with simple observation : there is ample examples of men who lost their arms, their legs, their nose, well ANY part of their body, and stayed the same person.
Though, ANY damage on the brain bring changes on the personnality and mental abilities.
It's also impossible to replace the brain, while prothesis are available for about anything else.
Hence, the mind is located in the brain.
Has the embryo a brain ?
It has, after a while, a nervous system. Though, the brain does not start to appear before the 10-12 th week. After that, the embryo is no more an embryo, but a fetus.
Hence the answer : NO the embryo is not a person. Hence, there is nothing bad in abortion up to the 10th or 12th week, as you don't destroy a mind.
Case closed. |
No it isn't.
Embryo. That word describes a stage in the life of a human being. A human being. It's not something else because it is at an earlier sage of it's life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
In the usual tradition of pro-lifers, you completely avoided my reasonning. |
You're arguing that the mind is what defines the human and that as it has no brain (siege of the mind) until 10 to 12th week, an embryo cannot be defined as human.
I'm arguing that whether it has a mind or not at that time, it is a human being.
You chose your definition of what a human is. I chose mine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
but by any deffinition put forward here the US laws are still murder and should be changed
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What is your definition of what a human is ? |
MY definition? Hmmmm... Tough one. Hard to put into words. Hard to try and quantify that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Akka: We will not agree on any definition because any definition that you will have will be the one that justifies abortion in your mind.
And guess what mine will be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Why not give the innocent being in the womb the benefit of the doubt? Does semantics really determine the poor soul's fate?
When is a dog a real dog? When he wags his tail?
I guess the solution is to kill whatever it is until Webster can write a new dictionary.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2002 00:55
|